HHP: MASN/Nats/Orioles case (Inside the Courtroom)

[howboutthoseos]

Actually no. He said there was nothing suggesting collusion, or overwhelming enough to overturn based on that claim. He did say that, because they ignored the Orioles early and repeated objection to the Nats using counsel that was also used by MLB, that he had no choice but to overturn it. That's it.

Highly suggest everyone here read the decision. It's only 27 or so pages.

The victory seems a bit hollow. The Court basically says there is no basis for overturning the methodology used to reach the panel's judgment. They overturned only because all sides other than the Orioles were represented by the same lawyers. So if they go through this same process again, and the Nats get a same/similar result, and everyone is represented by different lawyers, then the Orioles are screwed. Is that right? If so, this doesn't seem like a very permanent or long-term win.

[Roll Tide]

Today’s ruling vacates that award. If the decision is upheld on appeal, it would require the parties to renegotiate and/or re-arbitrate the rights fees. Importantly, the decision does not address the underlying substantive dispute, let alone decide that in favor of the Orioles/MASN.

The root of the dispute dates back to the dealmaking that paved the way for the Expos-turned-Nationals organization to move to D.C. The Orioles opposed the intrusion on their market, of course, and the compromise ultimately included a deal in which the O’s would maintain a significant ownership percentage of MASN.

Annual fees for the Nationals’ broadcast rights were also covered in the resulting set of contracts, with the first several seasons’ fees pre-established at fairly low rates. Pursuant to the agreement, the annual rights value was to be re-negotiated after 2011 (and every five years thereafter) to arrive at a fair market value of those rights.

When that negotiation failed, the arbitration was initiated, with the Orioles proposing a $34MM payout for 2012 and the Nationals requesting $109MM. The panel hearing the case was a league committee known as the Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (RSDC). Its members, at the time, were Rays owner Stuart Sternberg, Pirates president Frank Coonelly, and Mets COO Jeff Wilpon. MLB itself, including now-commissioner Rob Manfred, also played a major role in the arbitration

.

From MLBTR Orioles section

[weams]

The victory seems a bit hollow. The Court basically says there is no basis for overturning the methodology used to reach the panel's judgment. They overturned only because all sides other than the Orioles were represented by the same lawyers. So if they go through this same process again, and the Nats get a same/similar result, and everyone is represented by different lawyers, then the Orioles are screwed. Is that right? If so, this doesn't seem like a very permanent or long-term win.

Quite a few assumptions here as well. In his decicion Judge Marks was careful to not rule at all on any issue other than the one vacations the existing award. What might happen in other venues stands to be decided.

[DrungoHazewood]

It's stupid, but this will get resolved in two ways. Either the parties will settle and play nice, or Birdland will take their torches and pitchforks and send the Nats back up to Montreal. I'd lead the charge with Machado and Angelos on the second one.

So you're saying they're going to settle and play nice. There's roughly a 0.00% chance the Nats or Orioles are going anywhere.

[DrungoHazewood]

I just have no patience at listening to the Nationals cry about this deal. The Orioles gave up 30% of their market by allowing them inside the 50 miles rule. IMO the Expos should've moved to Charlotte.

The Expos, Lerners, and MLB knew what they were signing to invade Orioles territory. Was he hope to renegotiate later? If it was it was stupidity. Almost as stupid as allowing them to move to DC in the 1st place.

The other side of that argument is that the Orioles should never have expected that MLB would protect their illogical territorial arrangement for all eternity. Illogical from a MLB business perspective - obviously it was in the Orioles' interest to claim all territories from north of the PA line to Kentucky to South Carolina forever.

The Orioles' situation would be like if the A's were in Oakland, but there were no SF Giants and the A's expected MLB to keep a team out of the larger and more prosperous side of the Bay forever. From MLB's perspective and everyone except A's owners and fans that's nuts.

[Roll Tide]

The other side of that argument is that the Orioles should never have expected that MLB would protect their illogical territorial arrangement for all eternity. Illogical from a MLB business perspective - obviously it was in the Orioles' interest to claim all territories from north of the PA line to Kentucky to South Carolina forever.

The Orioles' situation would be like if the A's were in Oakland, but there were no SF Giants and the A's expected MLB to keep a team out of the larger and more prosperous side of the Bay forever. From MLB's perspective and everyone except A's owners and fans that's nuts.

It was in direct conflict to the rules to allow a move into DC due to mileage. It severly hampered revenue an the Orioles fan base by at very least 30 percent.

The Orioles should've fought against it all together. Angelos would been better off to fight it in court ...MLB agreeing to a deal only to try to amend it later is bull crap. Everyone knew what they were agreeing to and as I said they should've moved the team to Charlotte where the effects to other teams would've been minimal to the Orioles and Braves.

[DrungoHazewood]

It was in direct conflict to the rules to allow a move into DC due to mileage. It severly hampered revenue an the Orioles fan base by at very least 30 percent.

The Orioles should've fought against it all together. Angelos would been better off to fight it in court ...MLB agreeing to a deal only to try to amend it later is bull crap. Everyone knew what they were agreeing to and as I said they should've moved the team to Charlotte where the effects to other teams would've been minimal to the Orioles and Braves.

I understand MLB's internal rules. I also understand that Washington is a market more than twice the size of Charlotte (2.4M TV households compared to 1.15M), and more wealthy per capita. Washington was clearly the most lucrative untapped market for MLB, and there's a darned good argument that the combined revenues of Washington and Baltimore with two teams was better for the league than Baltimore leveraging a fraction of DC while putting the Expos in another Milwaukee/Cincy/KC sized city.

[Crabcakes]

Actually no. He said there was nothing suggesting collusion, or overwhelming enough to overturn based on that claim. He did say that, because they ignored the Orioles early and repeated objection to the Nats using counsel that was also used by MLB, that he had no choice but to overturn it. That's it.

Highly suggest everyone here read the decision. It's only 27 or so pages.

So, there's no collusion when both the Gnats & MLB use the same law firms?.....Guess my idea of 'collusion' is different than the learned judge's, which to me is "misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties." http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/ .

no matter....in the long run, the O's have been, are & will be in the future, hosed.

[scOtt]

So, there's no collusion when both the Gnats & MLB use the same law firms?.....Guess my idea of 'collusion' is different than the learned judge's, which to me is "misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties." http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/ .

no matter....in the long run, the O's have been, are & will be in the future, hosed.

I'm no lawyer but it's not collusion. It's conflict of interest.

[blid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2015/11/04/judge-rules-in-favor-of-masn-and-orioles-tosses-out-mlb-panels-ruling-for-nats/

This warrants a new thread rather than a drop on page 31 of a thread from over a year ago, imo. It's big news!

[TonySoprano]

This warrants a new thread rather than a drop on page 31 of a thread from over a year ago, imo. It's big news!

There already is one

[blid]

Oh I see. I stumbled onto this one first for some reason and didn't realize

[weams]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/raissman-comcast-takes-shot-yankees-dispute-article-1.2442590

[scOtt]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/raissman-comcast-takes-shot-yankees-dispute-article-1.2442590

[video=youtube;rX7wtNOkuHo]

[weams]

[video=youtube;rX7wtNOkuHo]

...And that would mean not negotiating a deal with YES until it agreed to be placed on a “sports tier” rather than being part of a basic cable package, where YES gets monthly payments based on ALL 900,000 Comcast subscribers. In a “tier” system, only subscribers who want to watch baseball or Nets basketball would pay a monthly fee to access YES.

A “tier” system would not only reduce the carriage fees cable operators pay RSNs, it would reduce — drastically — the rights fees baseball teams receive from the RSNs. This would result in teams losing millions of dollars in TV money, which would lead to significantly reducing huge free agent contracts and likely lowering player salaries across the board.

If the “tier” system were established, other cable operators would use it on Comcast’s RSNs. Again, if Comcast has determined the “tier” is better for its overall cable business it would live with that reality. If this is the plan, look for this economic confrontation between Comcast and YES to last for quite a while — maybe even the entire 2016 season.